Pages

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Realistic vs. Unrealistic Realism

So, is America
teaming up with Al-Qaeda, again? That is indeed the story if one is to
believe Andrew Cockburn’s assertion in this essay of his in Harper’s magazine.
A more accurate statement, however, might go like this: America might be
teaming up with some Jihadi groups (such as Ahrar Al-Sham and Jaish Al-Islam)
whose basic ideology may not be so different from Al-Qaeda, in order to defeat
a common enemy, in this case the IS/Daesh. America has adopted a similar
strategy before when it supported the Afghan Mujahideen, an assortment of
Jihadi groups backed by Saudi Arabia as well and which included Al-Qaeda, as
well as Iranian-backed Shia Jihadis, in their fight against the Soviets. In
geopolitical terms, these nuances make a helluva difference. When it comes to
Russia, Iran, China, and even Syria or Venezuela, such nuances, such political
consideration are never neglected, and are often used by a variety of pundits,
experts and journalists to justify the often inexcusable and cruel actions of
the leaderships involved. But when it comes to America, things have to be seen
in black and white, for some ideological reason. And America has to be
condemned, where others are given a pass.

This comes as a defense of
consistency rather than America’s fuckups, past or present. Why can’t we just
examine things from a somewhat detached perspective, so we can truly understand
our lot and have a decent chance at improving it?

Back to Syria and America’s plans
there, consider this: when no one intervened when Assad was bombing the largely
peaceful protesters, and when it took close to a year before America began to
provide some logistical support to moderate rebels, albeit on a highly
haphazard basis, and when talks with Iran proceeded as though they were not
supporting Assad’s mass slaughter campaign, and a deal was reached that only
serve to postpone the “inevitable” while further empowering one of the most
destabilizing forces in the region, when Russians were allowed to do what they
wanted in Syria from providing arms to the Assad regime to carving their own
niche along the Mediterranean (imperialism anyone?), and when you pledged not
to put boots on the grounds even if for the defense of the weak and the
shattered remains of our sense of humanity and decency, and when international
law is clearly on your side, even if it suited the Russian not to admit it,
when you are willing to do or let all this happen, what other options did you
really leave yourself? When you let the rascals out, and only watch as they
push the decent and the moderate away from the scene, when you, in other words,
let the rascals rule, with whom are going to partner when it is time for you to
act?

On the other hand, for the same
people who were advocating non-intervention (I don’t know if Andrew Cockburn is
one of them, but his article is definitely being shared all over by them), and
who are supportive of the deal with Iran and are against putting boots on the
ground, and who are now busy criticizing Saudi Arabia’s role in Syria and the
region, while ignoring Iran’s similar role, and who are set against this
particularly desperate amoral measure, which remains more a possibility than a
reality, what do they really want? Some want Assad to stay in power, and some
are clearly advocating a return to the policy of doing business with autocrats,
but not Saudi, Qatari, Turkish, or any potentially powerful Sunni autocrat
really, just Shia, Russian, Chinese and weak Sunni and African autocrats. Why?
Who knows? It could be anything from ideology and clientelism to having
LSD-fried brains, or meth for blood. Whatever the cause may be, this is the
consequence: the fascists are reemerging on the historical scene, and with a
vengeance. Their failure
to win he regional elections in France is heartening, but could prove to be
a temporary setback if not followed up with efforts to address the roots causes
behind the phenomenon. And that’s a toll order.

The Economist then goes on to
suggest steps to help tackle the problem, including: maintaining commitment to “open markets,
open borders, globalisation and the free movement of people,” work with
Muslims attempting to take on the extremists in their midst, and show strong
leadership on security challenges. The last point does not mean that we should
focus on the IS/Daesh phenomenon alone, but on the larger issues that
facilitated its rise, which in Syria, would include the Assad regime and its
murderous tactics.

But by now, it should be clear
that tackling the issue of Assad’s removal has become an overly complicated
problem. The U.S. cannot proceed alone in this matter. But then, the U.S. does
not have to. Now that Saudi Arabia has announced the formation of a 34-State
Islamic Military Alliance Against Terrorism, the U.S. should work with them
to prevent this from becoming another nonsensical dysfunctional entity like the
Friends of Syria group or the Arab League, and call on them to provide the
necessary boots on the ground. Meanwhile, the U.S., France, the U.K., Germany,
Australia and perhaps Canada as well, if Justin Trudeau is willing to
reconsider its decision about involvement in the Syria Conflict, can provide
the necessary air cover and logistical support, and perhaps even create a
no-fly zone to ensure the protection of civilian population. Liberated areas
can then be government by the local councils who, as
Alexander Starritt argues in The Guardian, represent the real alternative
to both IS and Assad.

Yes, the move does entail risking
a confrontation with Russia and Iran, but there is no way out of this anymore.
Both countries need to be stopped, and they need to be stopped now, in Syria,
else they are bound to create more mayhem in the region and elsewhere: Central
Asia is already boiling, and Russia’s designs on well-nigh imploding Moldova
are no secret.

Go ahead, patronize me!

About Ammar

Ammar Abdulhamid is a Syrian-American author and pro-democracy activist based in Silver Spring, Maryland. He is the founder of the Tharwa Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to democracy promotion. His personal website and entries from his older blogs can be accessed here.

The Delirica

The Delirica is a companion blog to the Daily Digest of Global Delirium meant to highlight certain DDGD items by publishing them as separate posts. Also, the Delirica republishes articles by Ammar that appeared on other sites since 2016. Older articles can be found on Ammar's internet archive: Ammar.World